United States v. Moses Childs, Jr., 17 F.4th 790

Moses Childs, Jr. pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
In 2004 he was sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal to 180 months and five years supervised release; that sentence was affirmed on appeal.
In 2016 the district court vacated the ACCA sentence under Johnson (2015) and resentenced Childs to time served and three years supervised release.
Childs committed sexual assault while on supervised release; the district court revoked release and imposed an 8‑month prison term plus 18 months supervised release, to run consecutively to a state sentence.
Childs appealed, arguing (1) the revocation sentence caused him to overserve the statutory maximum for the underlying offense, (2) Haymond entitles him to a jury determination, and (3) the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court failed to adequately account for time already served.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting each of Childs’ challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revocation sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for the underlying offense	Childs: He has "overserved" because total federal custody time exceeded the offense's statutory maximum (10 years)	Government: Supervised release and revocation custody are governed separately; § 3583(e)(3) authorizes revocation terms up to two years for Class C felonies	Affirmed: Revocation term lawful; supervised release is distinct and may be imposed in addition to the offense maximum under existing precedent
Whether Haymond requires a jury finding for facts increasing revocation punishment	Childs: Haymond (plurality) renders § 3583(e) revocations subject to jury rights like § 3583(k)	Government: Haymond is limited to § 3583(k); plurality does not control broader application; precedent controls § 3583(e)(3) revocations	Affirmed: Haymond does not extend to § 3583(e)(3); no Sixth Amendment jury right on these facts
Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable for failing to account for time already served	Childs: Additional eight months serves no rehabilitative purpose after nearly 15 years served	Government: District court considered time served and mitigated a longer sentence accordingly; supervised release serves rehabilitative/community reintegration goals	Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; court expressly considered time served and § 3553(a) factors and imposed a below-guidelines revocation term

United States v. Childs, 403 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming original ACCA sentence)
United States v. Walker, 513 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of revocation sentence legality)
United States v. Postley, 449 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2006) (supervised release distinct from prison term)
Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 53 (2000) (distinguishing prison and supervised-release terms)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutional; basis for resentencing)
United States v. Poe, 471 Fed. Appx. 556 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting supervised release may be imposed in addition to statutory maximum)
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (method for determining controlling opinion in fractured decisions)
United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) (plurality: § 3583(k) unconstitutional as applied; limited holding)
United States v. Eagle Chasing, 965 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 2020) (rejecting extension of Haymond to § 3583(e)(3))
United States v. Henderson, 998 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting Haymond did not overrule prior supervised-release precedents)
United States v. Boelter, 806 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 2015) (revocation-sentencing standard; district court discretion)